Sam Insights@samandinsights
Good point though and I respect that. 🫡
But here's why it doesn't transfer:
The Mokoena case was administrative; player eligibility is a regulatory fact that exists completely outside the match.
Mokoena was either eligible or he wasn't. The referee has zero authority over that determination. Him allowing Mokoena to play changed nothing legally because eligibility isn't his jurisdiction.
The AFCON final walkoff is fundamentally different; it's an on-field event that happened during the match, under the referee's direct and exclusive authority.
IFAB Law 5 is explicit:
"The referee has the power to stop, suspend or abandon the match at his discretion."
Abandonment is solely the referee's call.
Unlike eligibility, it is entirely within his jurisdiction. He assessed the situation, waited, allowed the captain to retrieve the players and resumed the match.
That wasn't negligence; that was a lawful exercise of his authority under the Laws of the Game.
So the two cases actually illustrate the opposite principle:
For Mokoena; the referee cannot override administrative regulations.
For AFCON final; referee's on-field authority over abandonment is supreme.
One confirms regulatory supremacy over referees. The other confirms referee supremacy over on-field decisions.
Different jurisdictions. Different rules. Different outcomes.
Great case though. Genuinely.
